 You could argue that the Ikea effect was a kind of sum-cost bias, the fact that we value something more highly than we've put effort into, for instance. The idea would be, and the reason it's called the Ikea effect, is that the very awkwardness of a visit to Ikea, which requires a trip out of town and a fairly convoluted trip through an extraordinary range of furniture before you can choose and pay, to some extent strengthens our determination to buy, that's the first point, in that going all the way to an Ikea and then navigating the store and leaving it empty-handed would feel like a, you know, a five-day fishing trip where you caught nothing, it would be the retail equivalent of quite as interrupt as, you know, there would be something to leave out, empty-handed is almost unthinkable, so you'll have to buy some tea lights at the very least to validate the effort you've put in. There's also a psychological effect, by the way, which is that I think the furniture is very reasonably priced, and it's reasonably priced, not because it's bad in quality, it's because it's produced very efficiently. None of them are something about the human brain, probably tends to discount things that are a bit cheap, ought to view them with a bit of suspicion. But if you add a degree of difficulty somewhere, we will see that as a form of cost, and we will actually start to think, well, actually, this furniture isn't cheap because it's poorly produced, it's partly cheap because it's extremely effortful to buy. It's rather like, if you had the same fruit and one lot was, the proposition was cheap strawberries, you'd go, hmm, what's wrong with these? If you have a trade-off, pick your own strawberries, you tend not to devalue the cheaper product in the same way because you see your effort as part of the payment, if you like, it's contributing towards quality.